Skepticism

Subscribe to Blog via Email

EVENTS

CNN must have felt the heat

That wretched excuse to bash atheists on the Paula Zahn program that I criticized must have generated some intense and voluminous correspondence, because right now they’re scrambling to do damage control. I just got word from Richard Dawkins that they are going to repeat the lead segment (the part with the ostracized atheist family), and then instead of showing the bumbling bigot panel, they’re planning to replace that debacle with a new interview with Richard Dawkins. That’s tonight, Thursday, at 8PM EST.

For symmetry, it would have been better to have a panel with Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris to talk about those darned obnoxious Christians…the asymmetry would have reemerged, though, when they discussed the issue with more class and thoughtfulness than Debbie Schlussel and Karen Hunter.

At least for a segment on how atheists are viewed/treated in the U.S., they could have picked an American atheist. Dawkins, with his heavy British accent, talking about how American atheists are treated is just odd. Hell, have ’em interview you, PZ.

Maybe when PZ finishes his book trashing religion he’ll become the American atheist Rep. I’d rather him than Harris, givin his silly views on spirituality (which border on religious stupidity that he seems to trash).

I first saw the youtube clips linked from this blog and then posted them on Daily Kos and emailed the Richard Dawkins site. I even got many of my religious family and friends to send in complaints to CNN. It seems we atheists are getting organized and active – a very good sign indeed. Thanks to everyone who took action on this!

Adrienne, look for the transcript for the Paula Zahn show on Jan. 31. It doesn’t mention atheism in the title, so it was considered one of those “minor” parts of the show. It was the last segment of the show, so it’s at the bottom of the transcript.

As for Dawkins, I’m not really happy they’re using only him. I like him, sure, but I agree with PZ that a panel would have been better. That would demonstrate that there are many atheists out there, and that our views can differ somewhat. It may seem a silly point, but I think it actually matters, as does the three or four-to-one ratio of theists-vs-atheists this sets up between the two shows.

Dawkins’ high profile is great in what it accomplishes, but his singular nature makes it easier for theists to portray and attack him as an outlier and outsider, and to narrow the definition of “atheist.” I half-seriously wonder when they’ll start calling us “Dawkinists.” Not that I’d mind the company.

Well, no American atheists have the visibility of Dawkins (Dennett, for example, isn’t even close to as widely known). But what’s the point of having a Brit on to discuss the plight of American atheists? Would it make sense to have Dennett go over and do an interview for the BBC on the plight of British atheists? Obviously not.

Of course, as someone who’s been an atheist, and around atheists, for a long time, I’ve experienced no real discrimination, so I’m not exactly sure what all the hubbub is about. And I’ve spent most of that time firmly embedded in the Bible belt.

Wait, I have lost a date or two for being an atheist. I suppose I’d have trouble if I ran for congress, too.

rrt, I’ve been calling you rationalist atheists Dawkinsians for some time now, but I guess that’s not really what you mean, since it’s meant to distinguish between types of atheists (my type being… I dunno, Nietzscheans? Ricoeurians? pomo sons of bitches?).

I have a feeling that this interview is going to be Paula Zahn (or whoever) asking questions that will make atheists look more extreme and avoid talking about the misconceptions that most of the US has (i.e. we have no morals).

Yes, I independently had the same thought yesterday, about the need for American voices rather than my English one. I suggested some names, including Michael Newdow who was actually slandered by one of the morons on the previous program. Unfortunately, however, CNN were adamant that they wanted a one-on-one between me and Paula Zahn. So I’ll just have to do the best I can, with apologies to those who could surely have done a better job. I think it is possible that CNN don’t want to concentrate on American attitudes to atheists this time, so much as on atheism more generaly (I was told that Paula Zahn is reading The God Delusion).
Richard

At least it’s something. I had my doubts that they’d even register the complaints, after I too got a heartfelt reply from CNN thanking me for responding to the Steve Irwin memorial piece instead of geared towards the Zahn atheist piece I had written to complain about.

Unfortunately, however, CNN were adamant that they wanted a one-on-one between me and Paula Zahn.

The linguist in me wants to discuss over tea the complications of singular they or plural CNN; however, I know I should be more concerned with the melancholy confirmation this provides of the horse-race mentality. It reminds me of Bill Watterson’s take on newspapers: “You can tell this is an in-depth story, because it has an article next to the chart.”

Yes, that really is Richard Dawkins. If some fraud comes along and tries to post something under his name (or anyone else’s), it will be denounced. Pseudonyms are OK, but impersonations are one of those things I will squash.

Of course no offense, Dr. Dawkins, but Atheism in America has the stereotype of either being an older educated white male, or young teenage ‘rebellion’ and the major news stations are happy to reinforce that stereotype. For example, irritating segments on the Blasphemy Challenge were in fashion the past few weeks, and now you are being booked you to talk about Atheism in America (kind of strange…)

Im sure theyd rather show nothing than to have a panel of atheists whos diversity mirrored their original panel. Especially ones who directly contradict every stereotype about atheists that uninformed theists can think of, like myself or any of my classmates.

The pendant in me wishes to point out that the linguist in you may not be aware that the singular they has a long and respectable history as proper usage, as well as that in British English, a group gets a plural (“Oliver’s Army are on their way”).

Debbie Schlussel: “So to you hate-filled atheists a/k/a future Muslim extremists (redundant), your e-mails have no effect on me. Ditto for your creative obscenities which don’t impress upon me the civility of the atheo-fascisti set.”

Wow.

Did my not sending you an e-mail at all, Debbi, because I didn’t watch the panel, because their opinions didn’t interest me, and anyway I had to prepare for class, because I have ambitions, because I define myself by what I do believe in (rather than your obsession with what I don’t believe in), because I have a life, have an influence on you at all?

All you want to hear about, lil’ Debbi, are the atheists who sue over the pledge of allegiance and “In God We Trust.” I’ve never sued anyone; I’ve never disrupted one prayer; I didn’t have a fit when anyone I knew went back to the church, but it’s acceptable, whenever any atheist comes out, they are slapped down immediately as an “extremist” and to be told how to live our lives and what terrible people we are.

Let me tell you something, this current fad of the U.S. going absolutely bananas over Jesus (walk your dog with Jesus, eat breakfast with Jesus, teach math in a Christian way, prayer meetings at work, etc.) more resembles Theosophy in my opinion than traditional Christianity, and it is not going to last.

I wonder — if you only have 30 seconds, it’s much easier to make somebody irritated than to get them to stop and think. Assuming for the moment that Blasphemy Challenge videos follow the same quality distribution as, say, comments on ScienceBlogs, ranging from the offensive to the profound, wouldn’t the TV coverage skew toward the irritating instead of the thought-provoking?

Out here on the Blagnet, good things can at least sometimes become popular. The good gets noticed, and things which get noticed get linked to. Pages and videos which are linked in turn receive more traffic and additional links (“the rich get richer”).

Hypothesis: an interested outsider coming to the Blasphemy Challenge via the Blagnet — say, by reading Pharyngula posts — will discover the most humorous, insightful and generally worthwhile videos. On the other hand, a CNN viewer will see whatever clips they decide to feature on the show. Therefore, people exposed to the Challenge by the Internet itself will generally have a more favorable impression.

Dawkins is probably the best for the show, actually. This isn’t the time for nuance and concern about accents, it’s time for aggressive, confident pressure to end the double standard (like others have said I hardly feel persecuted, yet the sense that we should be “in the closet” is real).

And I don’t know, there’s something a bit nerdy about American proponents of atheism in my experience. The sort of dreary, ‘we’ve been down this path before’ issue hits, as well. I’m all for a British accent and someone with more of a cutting-edge reputation, principally in the hopes that people will actually take notice.

That’s my opinion, anyhow, but then I don’t even claim to be an atheist (don’t worry, though, I easily fit the other side’s definition of “atheist”).

The pendant in me wishes to point out that the linguist in you may not be aware that the singular they has a long and respectable history as proper usage, as well as that in British English, a group gets a plural (“Oliver’s Army are on their way”).

I apologize for giving the wrong impression, for you see I like the singular they. After all, I am large, I contain multitudes — don’t you? My (incidental) point was just that one could use they with antecedent CNN either by regarding CNN as a singular entity with neutral or unspecifiable gender, or by regarding CNN as a group of people (“them”) with some collective desire shared by the group members. Dawkins, I might argue, was doing the latter:

Unfortunately, however, CNN were adamant that they wanted a one-on-one between me and Paula Zahn.

It could only matter, of course, if considering CNN as a population of people bearing varying views makes us more likely to think that other mouths of the many-headed beast will say more insightful things than Paula Zahn has to date.

Although a panel would be good. I have not seen any indepth interviews with Richard Dawkins in the mainstream american media. The Colbert Repor was fun no doubt, but I don’t recall him being on the Today show or 60 minutes. Charlie Rose? CNN really is a good place for him to defend atheists everywhere. Also, Dawkins is a very engaging speaker and I have no problem with him representing us, he does take our plight to heart.

Let me tell you something, this current fad of the U.S. going absolutely bananas over Jesus (walk your dog with Jesus, eat breakfast with Jesus, teach math in a Christian way, prayer meetings at work, etc.) more resembles Theosophy in my opinion than traditional Christianity, and it is not going to last.

Orthopraxy, to cover the shambles of orthodoxy. Not going to last, true, but probably not going to lead to anything very intelligent either.

There’s vision in religion, while not much has remained in secularism, atheism, or whatever you want to promote against religion. Science isn’t as exciting or awe-inspiring to most people as it used to be, which is a real problem for replacing religion with sense. Social utopias are the gods that failed, a reason why the people invited the crows back again.

It might do well if some enthusiasm for the capabilities of reason and sensuality (in the broader sense) were kindled once more. Especially the “magic” of what we perceive and know, a la Romanticism or some such thing, might sell a whole lot better than the rationality promoted by Dawkins, and yes, PZ. There’s a kind of “spirituality” that pays heed to the world and revels in its processes that is much more satisfying than the thin mysticism of having Jesus along to walk your dog. But it isn’t, and probably never will be, organized. Plus it takes the actual work of learning to effect very well.

Europe has a better sense of what I’m talking about than the Anglo-American world does, which is likely one reason why it is more secular. I know I said that Dawkins is probably best for the program, however I doubt his approach is best in the long run for actually displacing religion with the sort of “pagan” spirituality that cares about the world.

Look, the whole thing with this is, as I’ve said to others, being an atheist is not as important to me as being a Jew/Christian/Hindu/Muslim/whatever seems to be to other people. Because it’s not a religion. It’s just a thing, you know? Like not believing in luck, or not caring about Friday the 13th.

I’m myself first, an opinionated little heretic about everything, and as it is I freak out fellow atheists too with the things I say. So there. As Liz Taylor said, I’m not “like” anyone, I’m me.

So I am happy and grateful to have Richard Dawkins represent “us,” but for pity’s sake CNN is framing the discussion and I’m not comfortable with that. “We” are going to be made into the kind of monolithic group that “we” truly are not, because not believing in something is like not playing volleyball–there’s a million other things to do instead. But CNN is going to make “us” look like a cult (with the requisite “charismatic leader,” Dawkins, who is charismatic) and that’s just unfair.

(And has it occurred to anyone that that mainstream media wants to portray this as a foreign “atheist invasion”? My goodness, if those pointy-headed Brits/French/Commies would just leave Americans alone…)

The less I watch television, the less I can stand to watch television.

And the more I read Richard Dawkins the more things I find, along with the things I agree with, to debate with/question him about. (And hi, Mr. Dawkins!)

The only worry I have with Dawkins’s arguments is his apparent emphasis on the harmfulness of religion, when really faith is the culprit. I suspect that for many (most?) people, religion is about social events and culture and friends, and faith is only maybe 50% or 10% or 2% of the whole.

My impression is that Dawkins agrees that those other parts of religion are good and useful, but I think he would do well to make that point up front. I suspect that he looses a lot of people just due to the confusion between “faith” and “religion”.

But CNN is going to make “us” look like a cult (with the requisite “charismatic leader,” Dawkins, who is charismatic) and that’s just unfair.

Only to the stupid, and they already think we’re a cult that just hates Jesus and unknowingly (and sometimes knowingly) works for the devil.

Dawkins is too fractious to really appear as some cult leader, plus he doesn’t have the sorts of followers that comprise cults. He’s too negative to rally around, poking, provoking, and acting all cussed about religion. He doesn’t like religion, but beyond that he lacks a counter-utopia or even a positive replacement for the needs that religious people feel (as per one of my previous posts).

No, he’s just a provocateur and an advocate, not at all exhibiting the characteristics of someone wanting to lead, to rule, or to build a beautiful new society. That’s a good combination at this point. Anyone amenable to understanding will recognize that he’s just supporting a viewpoint, not the new atheist-dictator-in-waiting, and the other dullards deserve his biting tongue.

It isn’t the yahoos that we need to address. They can’t imagine that we’re not following somebody, yes, but let them imagine that Dawkins is it at the present time. There’s not much downside in their supposing that Dawkins is all that they have to counter. I think it’s been helpful in fighting ID for Dawkins to be making other “evolutionists” look moderate, and it won’t be likely to hurt secularism either for Dawkins’ non-subtle approach appear to be the real threat.

Is it more likely that CNN felt the “heat” from angry theists who were outraged that they did a segment even half-assed sympathetic to godless people, or that they felt the “heat” of the angry atheist hordes? I just don’t know.

Blake Stacey– No when I said ‘irritating’ I wasnt referring to the choices the news programs made in choosing videos. The program Im thinking of in particular was where videos were running silently in the background (of young ones who were not even informed that their video was being used) while the interviewer asked Brian Sapient “Why are you so angry? Why do you hate god? Why are you corrupting these children?” Similar programs then panned to a clergyman of some kind, who then declared that the videos werent real– those were just children rebelling against God, they arent atheists.

Thats what I meant when I was referring to news programs perpetuating false stereotypes about young atheists.

Dawkins has already gone on the record saying, “[O]rganized atheists have, until recently, been noticeably and discouragingly grey-headed.” He’s aware of the image problem, and with luck he’ll have the opportunity to mention it. You know, “You didn’t have to go to the trouble of finding a British professor like me, when you could have found an American teenager on the Internet.”

Thanks for the clarification. I do still wonder about the different impressions one gets of the whole kerfluffle depending on whether one learns of it from TV or from the Blagnet, but you make a very valid point.

Oh, and Poseidon, if Dawkins is the atheist Professor X, does that mean he can transfer his mind into a comatose brain — say, any of the Discovery Institute leadership? Coo-ool.

What is “sleazy” about a professor who unashamedly shares his views on a private forum that others choose to frequent, versus a nameless coward who chooses to visit, then slings mud in a drive-by fashion?

mothworm said: I’m not sure I see the distinction. “Social events and culture and friends” are good, but you can have that without religion. Religion and faith are pretty much inseperable.

They might be inseparable in the sense that removing faith from religion would make it something quite different than it is today. But that does not change the fact that religion and faith are not the same. There are many aspects of religion that have nothing to do with faith (and you can have faith without religion, e.g., nationalism). I think you have to make this disinction clear, or else people will think you are attacking the cultural and social aspects of religion.

Sadly, I sort of agree with some of the other commenters. Won’t this just reinforce the stereotype that a) all atheists are middle-aged scholars and b) Dawkins is somehow the Atheist Professor X?

I thought they had already cast him as the Atheist Magneto, anyway. :)

Seriously, though, let’s actually see the segment before we judge it. If they sandbag Dawkins, well, we can’t exactly give them hell since we haven’t got one, but the next best thing. But maybe they really are trying to repair their mistake.

As for the faith vs. religion-as-social-club issue, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Dawkins or PZ unleash their vitriol against the Unitarians or anything like them. They do make that distinction even if they don’t always do it explicitly. If your church really is just a social get-together and doesn’t try to impose doctrine or non-reality-based beliefs on anyone, well, I can’t speak for Dawkins or PZ, but I personally wouldn’t have a problem with it (although I think it’s a bit misleading to call it a “church” given what that term historically implies).

Alas, while I don’t have email from Richard Dawkins, I do have email from Debbie Schlussel. She linked to my blog after I wrote a piece called ‘Ten Reasons not to Vote for Tom Osborne’ (Nebraska gubernatorial GOP primary; long story). What I find curious is that my blog clearly says I’m an atheist, and I’m quite often mean to fundies on it. So evidently atheists aren’t always icky to Debbie; we have our occasonal uses.

Fine, then I’ll attack the Unitarians for them. These days they’re a lot more tolerant of “paganism” and other New Age woo than they are of secular humanism. “Spirituality” is now the big UU buzzword- which would profoundly shock the Humanist founders of many a venerable UU congregation. I have heard credible reports that prospective ministers who are not sufficently “spiritual” are weeded out by the UUA’s Ministerial Fellowship Committee. That’s why I stopped attending UU churches some years ago. I consider them actually worse than the United Church of Christ, which is a liberal and inclusive version of what at least is a coherent religious tradition rather than a mishmash of assorted varieties of credulity.

I just learned that CNN’s plan for this evening has changed. My 20 minute interview will be edited down to about 4 minutes, and it will be followed by a panel discussion involving Christopher Hitchens (representing atheists) and two religious spokesmen.
Richard

No offense to Richard, whose books I’ve been reading for a quarter century and who, every time I’ve seen him on TV at least, has been a wonderful voice for atheism. But I really wonder why the networks don’t interview Dan Dennett. I also know Dennett only through his books, but he’s not just one of the most articulate writers I’ve ever read, he’s just so gosh-darned reasonable and sensible, at least in print. So why *isn’t* he more visible in the media? Are they determined to portray atheism as a foreign disease? Is it just old fashioned American anti-intellectualism at work? Are they worried about giving publicity to a home-grown spokesperson for freethinkers?

I don’t know if I “dig” either one (yes I like you Richard, but what would it mean to dig you?), but, whatever one thinks of Hitchens, he’s no slouch at defending atheism. He should be able to speak to the more humanistically-educated viewers, and might suggest a less political gloss to “atheism”, in conjunction with Dawkins.

On the whole, the appearance of both ought to be good for secularism per se.

“I don’t have the reputation of a Debbie Schlussel, Stephen Smith, or Karen Hunter, so I don’t expect to get invited to these things.”

No, but you have the same initials as Paula Zahn. Let me remind you that these are not common initials. The producers at CNN are cagey enough to understand the cosmic implications of interviewing a PZ whose atheist views neatly counter the god-friendly doofusness of their own PZ. Something about wolves and sheep’s clothing comes to mind…

Now, if you want to remain blind and chalk this up to the vagaries of coincidence, go right ahead. I simply see it as the Lord again working in mysterious ways and through people, albeit once again in a way that is precisely irrelevant.

That would demonstrate that there are many atheists out there, and that our views can differ somewhat.

Allow me to plug The Non-Prophets, a biweekly atheist podcast out of Austin, TX (I have nothing to do with the show. I just listen to it).

One of the things I like about the show is that they’re not shy about arguing with each other (sometimes to the point of obnoxiousness). Not only that, but half the time the argument arises because one person disagrees with the other about the soundness of the logic used to arrive at a shared conclusion (“I agree with you that separation of church and state is a Good Thing, but your reasoning is faulty”).

And, of course, there’s a drinking game: every time someone says “asshat”, you drink.

Does it seem inherently obvious to anybody else that the only reason they chose a foreign atheist for the panel afterwards was so that he would say, “I don’t really know how bad atheists have it in America,” then the other two panelists can continue the victim blaming like we’re just making this shit up?

I’m actually a bit disappointed that they chose Dawkins as their token atheist, given that he is not American. Still, I hope Dawkins can move beyond the faith vs reason argument, and make it clear that this is an issue of intolerance. What Paula Zahn did was to condone bigotry on her show. It happened to be directed against atheists, but could just as easily been directed against Muslims or “illegals”.

This is all so disturbingly familiar…
On January 5th, Paula Zahn did a show about the new regulations about adoption from China. The panel did not include anyone who had adopted from China and the only person even remotely associated with the subject of adoption was an ANTI-international adoption advocate. The panel quickly lost its focus on the stated subject, and basically decided, without the slightest bit of evidence or research, that so many Americans adopted from China because they were racist against those of African descent and that they thought Asian children would be smarter and/or more beautiful.
I’m not going to discuss all the reasons why this is patently false and bigoted at the moment (those interested can read my letter to CNN here), but suffice it to say that the next episode of Paula Zahn revisited the issue after receiving “thousands of emails” (including one from yours truly).
The pessimistic side of me is starting to believe that they do this on purpose to boost ratings. I’m sure that there were many atheists watching who would not normally have watched that program, just like there were many Chinese adoptive parents watching that OK, but ultimately disappointing follow-up episode.

It’s so tiresome to see people referring to Hitchens as a ‘boob’. Whatever he is, it’s not a ‘boob’. The guy is more articulate and intelligent than most people here, I’d wager, and comes from the long British tradition of being able to speak well ex tempore (and hold his liquor). He’s seems to me better read than Dawkins too, and more adept at juggling philosophical concepts. He’s also shown no qualms at all in the past about eviscerating religious icons (e.g, Mother Teresa). One could hardly ask for a better spokesman for the atheist side…*and*, as a vigorous supporter of the war against what he called ‘Islamo-fascism, he’s a living refutation of people like Schlussel, who’ve tried to co-opt the term.

If you want to avoid boobery yourself, you might do better to read the actual New Yorker profile, than accept some blogger’s rather biased redaction of it. (Which was itself comical — you mean, Hitchens was actually *rude* at a *dinner party* when other guests ‘protested’ his dismissal of Howard Dean? Oh my goodness. What a crazy man!)

Liberals like Klein would love to be able simply dismiss Hitchens as a right-wing clown, but it never reads true. They either ignore or choke on the fact that Hitchens is actually *on the same side as them* on too many issues (e.g., atheism, abortion, the rigged vote in Ohio, even the stupidity of GW Bush). Yet his apostasy re: Iraq *must* be punished, so they resort to lame ad hominems and, in this sad instance, truly creative interpretations of pulled quotes.

The Wikipedia entry on Hitchens is a far more accurate
summary of his views, than Klein’s childish blurt.

In Romania we have this saying that a dumb person throws a stone in a pond and ten smart people throw themselves in to retrieve it. It is so much easier to destroy than to produce, so much harder to ignore idiots than to lower yourself to their level.

Yet, how can you ignore them, when they start throwing smart men in the pond when they are out of stones?